Feelings are pointless, don’t ever let anyone see you cry, and make sure to master the art of sports to the best of your ability. This sums up the standard American definition of what constitutes a man. For my whole life, I’ve been aware that nearly all of the facets of my personality ran counter to such a manifesto. These noticeable differences have always made me conspicuously unique, compared to the other men whose company I’ve shared at different junctures of my life thus far. Until a few years ago, this reality was not seen as positive but rather something negative and derogatory that was viewed with scorn, sincere confusion, and outright contempt from some. Currently, my life is worlds away from such a precarious and cloudy atmosphere. But this does not erase the living nightmare that so many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender teenagers – and even some adults – endure on a daily basis just for being themselves, not being conscious of the possibility that things can and will get better.

A significant degree of the problem is most likely cultural. The question must be asked: why is there only one mold that is exalted in America as the legitimate way of being a man?

When Madonna was announced as the scheduled performer for the halftime show at this year’s Super Bowl the response from most male football fans was one of annoyance and, in some cases, sheer outrage at the selection. What would warrant a reaction like this? In recent years Janet Jackson, Shania Twain, and Britney Spears have all debuted at the year’s most awaited sports arena. None of these other female artists were met with such hostility or indifference when it was made public that they would be the entertainment for the Super Bowl of each respective year.

From personal experience, it is obvious that most men appeared to think that Madonna was too old or not sexually appealing enough to garner a sufficient volume of excitement to make the performance one to remember. To some, this may be a legitimate grievance about this year’s halftime show. But another dynamic is at play. The fact is, even though former artists may indeed fall into this category, it’s harder to find any other artist that screams gay icon more than Madonna – except maybe Lady Gaga… Where Mother Monster probably would have had more relevance because of her youth, comprehensive popularity, and global appeal, Madonna may be viewed by the average, male, football fan as simply being a gay, old, pastime that has no pertinence to his life whatsoever. Why should any straight man be forced to subsist in such an overwhelmingly uncomfortable environment?

If being gay and being a real man weren’t considered mutually exclusive would this even be a problem?

The organizers of this year’s Super Bowl have made it apparent that the theme of homosexuality will subliminally pervade the course of the game. A commercial will be broadcast to specifically combat the bullying of LGBT persons in an athletic context. Heterosexual men may not consider this topic one that would impact their lives directly. But this is precisely part of the dilemma that exists within our culture as Americans. Walls have been erected where they need not exist. The seismic gap between the heterosexual and the homosexual realms of experience can and must be bridged.

From my own vantage point, I have to admit that during high school, I vividly remember zoning out completely whenever the time arrived to participate in my daily gym classes. Unless it was to ogle a guy who I found attractive, I really never paid attention or cared much about the logistical strategies of the games that were being played. I even feel a bit guilty about it in hindsight. Nearly every day, I nonchalantly flaunted the fact that these activities held no importance for me. Daily, I could predictably be found strolling along the field as my classmates actively took part in whatever game was being played, or, if forced to participate, I would do the bare minimum that was required for me to be considered a player. The apathy I had was undoubtedly formed by the fact that I did not grow up in an athletic household. Because of this, I never had the desire to pursue any meaningful directions in the realm of sports. Thus, any potential athletic ability I could have possessed had never been developed, and when forced to participate in sports activities, I simply viewed the endeavor as a chore that had to be carried out laboriously.

Because my personality never really contained the brawn that is required to be successful in sports, I simply saw the whole enterprise of athletics as something that I could never relate to. Viewing the world through different eyes, it has become clear that such an approach is profoundly simplistic. Being raised in a certain environment does not give one cause to belittle or dismiss the experiences that others may find meaningful and endearing in life. If anything, stepping outside of one’s comfort zones and learning to view the world as others do will only serve to enrich one’s own personal psyche and sense of being. All humans profit immensely by expanding our horizons beyond the limits of our own backyards.

Adopting such a perspective means that someday I should really sit down, and take the time to learn, analyze, and take part in the athletic pursuits that most men around the world find genuinely entertaining and gain true fulfillment from. Perhaps all gay men who’ve never been naturally athletic could derive something from understanding the mental calculations and determination that goes into strategically organizing the course of a given game?

It should be a given that as the legislative and social push for gay equality necessitates that those who are prejudiced or bigoted leave their immediate spheres of influence to become acquainted with new perspectives, so should LGBT persons not simply demand to be civilly accommodated, but truly explore and investigate how they can take part in and learn from the world in which they have been born.

By the same token, many heterosexual men, particularly those involved in the athletic arena, could do a lot more to better understand the emotions and activities that give meaning to the lives of gay men. Cultural barriers must be eradicated so that certain activities, settings, or even people aren’t just viewed as “gay”, but rather as unique, offering something special to society that is not encountered routinely. A wonderful way for such an enlightenment to take hold across all of American society would be if athletes who happened to be gay were given the freedom by the media and their fans to be open and unashamed about their fundamental identities. How is it that professional athletes are allowed to physically jostle, tackle, and even grab certain parts of each other’s bodies to express their enthusiasm for the game, but if it was discovered that they were attracted to persons of the same-sex and in a committed relationship with such a partner, this would completely obliterate the sense of irreproachable masculinity that is accorded to them by their fans?

Dialogue always ensues by way of a two-way street. Even though it may be awkward for many, choosing none other than the Queen of Pop to perform at this year’s Super Bowl could be the perfect way to begin the process of having such a meaningful discussion throughout the nation.

“Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.’” -Mark 1:14-15

Earlier this week, as Christians throughout the world concluded the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity it is highly coincidental that last Sunday’s Gospel would highlight the themes of conversion and repentance. If anything else in the world should serve as evidence of the reality of sin, it would be hard to find a better example than the divisions and hostilities that have severed, and visibly divided, the mystical Body of Christ – which is the Church.

Pure arrogance coupled with a temporal desire for power and domination, drove fallible men to inflict these wounds upon the universal Church. The overreaching prerogatives that the Roman papacy adopted for itself gradually created a wedge between the Christian communities of the East and West which would eventually lead to the Great Schism – thereby creating the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church as they exist today.

A distinct church would be destined to spring up that would carry on forever the spirit of the sixteenth century reformer Martin Luther, whose ultimate desire was not to sever his own ties with the Catholic Church, but rather to influence its leaders to put an end to unbiblical practices; such as the selling of indulgences that promised those who purchased them eternal salvation or reprieved sentences in Purgatory.

The Anglican Communion has its roots in King Henry VIII’s dissatisfaction with the amount of power and sway the Bishop of Rome was allowed to have over his personal life. This would eventually drive him to eradicate ecclesiastical ties with Rome and establish the Church of England, which over the centuries has proven to be an inestimable contribution to the global People of God through its theology, collegiality, and even artistically, considering the many beautiful choral works of music that have been composed within the Anglican tradition. Although the events which led to its creation may seem political and trivial, the Church of England serves as a perpetual testament to the premise that our lives as humans are our own, and that no matter how much we may respect the spiritual authority of the prelates of our respective denominations, all of us must follow the dictates of our own consciences and refuse to allow popes, bishops, or pastors to carry out the faculty of cognitive rationalization on our behalf.

Since the Reformation, countless other Protestant denominations, each with legitimate grievances against the status quo or their own unique theological perspective, have been formed to serve as living testimonies and communities dedicated to the service of the Risen Christ. Unfortunately, Christendom today seems to be more divided now than ever before. A common celebration of the Eucharist is not even possible amongst numerous churches because the theological/ideological chasms are seen as being too great. Even more deplorable are the internal occasions of corruption and abuse (most notably the rampant phenomenon of the sexual violation of children within Catholicism) that continue to threaten Christianity’s credibility for the world at large.

How can Christians overcome such obstacles – internal and external – so that a more poignant and effective manifestation of Christ’s Body might be projected to the world?

The prescription of conversion and repentance given in Mark’s Gospel appears to be an apt remedy. However, applying such a formula is deeper than simply asking certain people to convert and plead for forgiveness of their transgressions. In his book The Heart of Christianity, renowned biblical scholar Marcus Borg examines how these themes were authentically understood in the Jewish culture of the time which shaped and cultivated the public ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.

When Jesus uses the word “repent” in the Gospels, most Christians immediately are filled with illusions of personal guilt and think of seeking forgiveness for one’s sins. While this is a correct interpretation of the word it does not embody the fullness that it originally possessed in the Hebrew Scriptures. In the Jewish context, to repent means to return from a state of spiritual exile and ambiguity to a focused, committed relationship with God. In the New Testament, where the Gospels were written in Greek, a further depth of linguistic meaning is conveyed when this word is employed. To “go beyond the mind that you have acquired” is an additional flavor that is detected in the Greek composition of the word.  Therefore, a truly biblical understanding of the word “repent” means not just seeking God’s forgiveness but heartfully returning to God and adopting a new way of seeing to bring lasting and genuine fulfillment to one’s life.

If such an effort was done on a collective level by members of the Body of Christ throughout the world, particularly those in positions of ecclesiastical leadership, imagine the results that could be reaped. Within Catholicism, instead of simply window dressing a response to the clerical abuse crisis, why not craft standards that would have “real teeth” (as the Pope is fond of saying about other matters) in terms of preventing further outbreaks of such heinous acts - committed by those to whom the world’s most vulnerable members have been entrusted in confidence. Enacting a zero tolerance policy worldwide for any member of the clergy who is confronted with allegations of misconduct would prove to the world that the institutional church in Rome is truly committed to the welfare of innocent children rather than the upkeep of its colloquial facade in public opinion. Moreover, a powerful message could be conveyed by making it mandatory for bishops to relinquish their offices who were discovered to have either turned a blind eye to instances of abuse in their dioceses, or who shuttled perpetrators of such vile acts from parish to parish. Doing so would not preserve the status quo, but would instead definitively chart a sincere path into the future.

It goes without saying that such an approach would also engender re-evaluating the question of clerical celibacy (which has always been acknowledged to be a human creation) to allow members of the priesthood to marry as well as broaching the necessity of including the voices and input of women among the church’s leadership positions.

The same principle could be applied to the Anglican Communion as it continues to be divided geographically by the subject of homosexuality. Essentially, when the prospect of Christian unity is examined, nothing can ever conceivably be accomplished before various Christian bodies look within themselves and see what wrinkles, stains, or wounds are preventing them from moving toward full communion with other churches. Even if all Christian churches throughout the world fully tackled the issues which were inhibiting their communities from being credible witnesses to the Gospel of Christ, external, theological divisions would undoubtedly remain.

Even if this is the case, hope remains. During a service which took place to observe the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity at my parish here in Baltimore, a Methodist pastor shared some thoughts of John Wesley’s that would prove enlightening and encouraging when attempting to make a greater cohesion of all Christians a reality instead of a longed-for hope:

“But even though a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without doubt, we may. In this all the children of God may unite, even though they retain these smaller differences. These remaining as they are, they may help one another increase in love and in good works.”

Perhaps no one else’s words would prove more inspiring on this matter than those of Jesus of Nazareth, the humble Galilean peasant Whose passion for living and for spreading the Reign of God would give rise to countless bodies and institutions that would forever bear His name:

“If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but his end has come. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered.” -Mark 3: 25-27

Time will only tell how much longer those who call themselves followers of Jesus continue to consent to allow themselves to be spiritually tied, gagged, and held captive by the corruption and arrogance that continues to divide rather than unite the flock of Christ in a spirit of love, peace, and justice.

Dried-out evergreens abandoned by the curb. Bright red boxes of Valentine’s Day candy in the windows of drugstores. Parking meters unwrapped, twinkling lights gone dark, and the airwaves saturated with Top 40 hits in place of carols. The first week of January is here.

I love wintertime, I love watching snow fall, and I love sitting indoors snug and warm on a chilly day, so I don’t mean for these images to convey despair or despondence at the end of the Christmas season and the arrival of winter proper. I only wish to point out the startling speed at which the transition is accomplished. Everyone seems to forget that Christmas has twelve days. Radio stations that have been playing Christmas music since before Thanksgiving revert to their ordinary repertoire at 8 PM on the day itself. And Valentine’s candy? I still haven’t put the batteries in my Hess truck.

Just as the frenetic pivot from Santas to Cupids is a perennial feature of the coming of the New Year, so too is widespread condemnation of the crass commercialism of the holiday. The absurdity is not revealed in full until the sudden appearance of heart-shaped boxes right after Christmas, but we are warned throughout all of Advent to ward it off, and to remember the real “reason for the season.” Linus Van Pelt laments the fact that Christmas is “too commercialized” (and also “too dangerous,” though for reasons peculiar to his relationship with his sister and her fist). His iconic speech to Charlie Brown on what Christmas is all about stands as a shining counterexample to the claim of many Christians that the media are out to hide the original meaning of the holiday.

In his sermon at this year’s Midnight Mass at St. Peter’s, Pope Benedict exhorted the world’s Catholics to look beyond the “superficial glitter” of the season and to “discover behind it the child in the stable of Bethlehem, so as to find true joy and true light.” And it’s not as if the message falls on deaf ears. Given the pervasive hardship wrought by the Lesser Depression, it seems that there is a great appetite among Catholics (and all of our other Christmas-celebrating friends) for ways of experiencing the joy of the holiday without the attendant budgetary strain. This message of resisting commercialism is so timeless and so deeply internalized by so many people – even if not practiced by the same – that it just feels intuitively right to a great many of us that any and all efforts to pare back holiday spending are morally laudable. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is a contradiction inherent in this thinking.

On the one hand, it is in the best interest of a given individual or family to find ways to do more with less at Christmastime, and to resist the temptation to buy a lot of expensive gifts. As a nation though, we rely on consumer spending to drive economic growth. Economists finally seem to be saying that our bleak employment situation is starting to improve in earnest, and that holiday sales this year were probably robust enough to protect us against the threat of another downward spiral. The fact of the matter is that the more that shoppers buy, the more new employees that businesses will hire – and the more families that will breath a sigh of relief upon finally having a regular paycheck once again.

The eminent British economist John Maynard Keynes dubbed this dilemma the “paradox of thrift.” He observed that while any one person may make himself better off by saving for a rainy day rather than spending, a whole economy will be made worse off if all of its participants opt to save more. Less spending means fewer jobs, smaller incomes, and more unemployment, thereby negating any positive effect of the increased “thrift.”

Pope Benedict is certainly right to encourage us to engage in some introspection when it comes to our attitudes toward Christmas. This is not to say, however, that all ways of resisting commercialism are created equal. If we simply forego the gifts and leave our money in the bank, we are certainly doing a good thing. But what of the broader impact? We may not think of buying toys or socks for our friends as a form of charity, but doing what little we can to make sure that a store clerk has money to put food on the table is indeed a more noble act than many of us realize.

We certainly should not buy frivolous things that we don’t need and won’t use, but we should be conscious of the fact that our choices have ramifications beyond the ones that we see right in front of us. Taking what we would have spent on shiny electronics and putting it into savings is one way to show our anti-materialism, but using that money to purchase canned food for a local food bank may do more tangible good.

Commercialism can easily get out of hand, but there’s nothing innately wrong with commerce. By all means, stuff the stockings and trim the tree when next Christmas rolls around, knowing that someone may be able to keep their job because of it. But at least keep that tree decorated until Three Kings’, and hold off on the chocolate hearts until February. They only dry out anyway.

“By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” -Luke 1:78-79

The most wonderful time of the year is upon us. As the universal Church ponders the mystery of the Incarnation it is highly appropriate to reflect about what this central focal point of our faith really means. During the past year, my own theological views have undergone considerable revision. Thanks to the writings of Bishop John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and the renowned Fr. Hans Küng I have been exposed to a new understanding of God and a radically new approach to the Christian life.

The richest kernel of wisdom that has been received from these theologians is being able to understand that not all accounts in the Bible can be taken as being historically or scientifically infallible - even those that have been perceived as being foundational to Christianity. To the early Church, the birth of Jesus of Nazareth ushered in a new and definitive beginning for the human race – as God was communicated in a unique way, for all, in the person of Christ. Conveying this sentiment was accomplished, as most religions of the time did, through mythical tales that employed certain symbols to establish and underline the truth that was being emphasized.

For most Christians, to consider the accounts contained in the Gospels that detail the birth of Jesus as fictional is indeed a revolutionary concept. In the opinions of many it is tantamount to heresy. However, as Scripture is analyzed, it is plain to see that the fantastic birth narratives chronicled in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels never formed the core of the Christian tradition. The first reference to the birth of Christ in the New Testament comes from one of the apostle Paul’s epistles, written around the middle of the first century C.E. In the Letter to the Galatians, Paul details of how, “When the fullness of time had come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.” (Galatians 4:4-5).

Writing at a time before any of the canonical Gospels had been composed, one of the greatest pillars of the early Church appears to be ignorant of any knowledge of angelic throngs, wise men from the East, mobile stars, or miraculous conceptions that accompanied the birth of Jesus. Paul describes it matter-of-factly, simply stating that He was “born of a woman.” No supernatural phenomena characterized the event. If they had, wouldn’t they have proven worthy of mention?

The oldest of the four Gospels (that of Mark – written twenty years after Paul’s epistles) never mentions the birth of Jesus but begins immediately with Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist. Matthew and Luke’s Gospels (which were largely based on the material found in Mark) were written at least five to fifteen years after the composition of Mark. The annunciation and birth narratives of Jesus that Christians have become so accustomed to are unique to these two Gospels. Even John’s Gospel, which highlights and emphasizes the divinity of Christ more than any other, fails to mention any incident of a miraculous birth – only stating, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word became flesh and lived among us” -John 1:1,14

If the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke can be considered an independent development within the early Christian tradition, and not a foundational one, how did they come about and what do they mean for the life of the Church today?

First, it must be understood that the concept of a virgin birth need not be as fundamental as it has been for the past two millenia of Christian history. The origins of this belief are usually based on a passage from the Old Testament book of Isaiah, where God promises that “a virgin will conceive and bear a son, and shall call him Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14). For centuries, this verse was seen as substantiating the idea that the exact manner and circumstances of the coming of the Messiah had been foretold long ago in Sacred Scripture. However, when the question of translation is examined another picture is painted. The version of Isaiah that the author of Matthew’s Gospel used was a Greek rendering of the original Hebrew text. In Greek, the word “parthenos” does indeed describe a virgin in the sexual sense. But in Hebrew, the word used concerning the woman is ”almah” which does not mean a virgin, but rather a “young woman”, married or unmarried. Thus, the assertion that the virgin birth of Jesus was foreshadowed in the Old Testament is completely unfounded.

This tradition probably arose to emphasize God as being the source of the unique and irrevocable call that impelled all that Jesus of Nazareth said and did throughout His life. Portraying Jesus as not being born as the result of human conception placed His very existence not within the fallible limits of frail human beings, but rather among the infinite possibilities of the Divine. As the Gospel of Luke phrased it, a new “Dawn from on high” had broken upon the horizon of human history, that would leave it forever and irreparably changed.

As the early Christian community reflected on this mystery, more and more attention would come to be focused on the biological state of Mary’s virginity rather than what that virginity ultimately represented theologically. Analogies were constructed between the Old and New Testaments that compared Eve’s role in humanity’s fall from grace with Mary’s chosen status as the spotless vessel to bear the One to redeem mankind. From that point on, Mary, the mother of Jesus would ever be attached to the word Virgin. This quality, more than any other, would be what distinguished Mary in Christian theology. Not her courage or the maternal dedication of her faith, but the fact alone that she never took part in sexual intercourse with a man. Seeing sexual expression as a necessary evil that was inaugurated after the dreaded Fall in the Garden of Eden , early Christian theologians frowned upon viewing anything positive about the topic. The virginity of Mary was the perfect way to depict the unrealistic ideal towards which all faithful Christians should aspire – celibacy. Such actions would continue to erect a tradition of theologically denigrating human sexuality. Even worse, such a trend would deny women any positive role models to emulate, aside from those who had chosen the path of clerically endorsed celibacy. If Mary was never a virgin, how enriching or useful is such a doctrine for the women of the twenty-first century?

Another staple of the traditional Christmas story is that, spurred on by a census issued by Caesar Augustus, the pregnant Mary and her husband Joseph travelled over one-hundred miles from Nazareth to Joseph’s ancestral town of Bethlehem. The little town of Bethlehem is the subject of countless sentimental carols, but has anyone ever given any thought to whether it was actually the real birthplace of Jesus?

In terms of historical accuracy, there are no records of any such census being taken in Judea by the Roman Empire that would have forced families to travel back to the towns of their ancestors in order to be accounted for. The Romans kept meticulous records of such undertakings, and an event as unique as this would surely have been found in the annals of some chronological ledger that kept track of the activities of the Empire in its various provinces. Josephus, nor any other contemporary historian ever makes mention of the account. Logistically speaking, such a census would be a civic nightmare! Why order the population of a given region to scatter to numerous different sites to be counted when they all could gather at one central location?

Bethlehem was the legendary King David’s hometown. Making a connection between such a renowned figure in Israel’s history would remove beyond all doubt the legitimacy of Jesus as the Messiah that had been promised generations ago. And what would conveniently place the Holy Family within the City of David? A census. Thus, it must be admitted that the arduous journey of Mary and Joseph, that has characterized part of the charm and timeless appeal of the Christmas story to countless generations of Christians, is most likely not history, but rather, poetic license taken to substantiate the early Christian community’s view that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah. This promised Anointed One had to possess some connection to the legacy of Israel’s most illustrious hero, therefore the fictional census of Luke’s Gospel serves to establish this bond.

If one wishes to consult the guidance of history, it is safe to say that Nazareth was probably the birthplace of Jesus.

In the same way, there can be no historical reference found that documents the slaughter of the innocents under the order of King Herod that is found in the Gospel of Matthew. Just as the author of Luke’s Gospel had a subliminal method behind the creation of his narrative of the birth of Jesus so did the composer of Matthew’s Gospel. The author of Matthew was writing to a largely Jewish audience, so it was imperative to enumerate connections between Old Testament themes and the life of Jesus in his Gospel. Throughout Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as the new and definitive fulfillment of Moses – one of the Torah’s most prominent figures. So think, where else in Scripture does a tyrannical king order the slaughter of a small cluster of innocent children? In the beginning of the book of Exodus, the story is told of how the Pharaoh of Egypt orders the annihilation of all male Hebrew children under the age of two for fear of an uprising that would topple his reign. The mother of Moses places him in a basket and sets him afloat upon the Nile River. The boy finds his way to the palace of the Pharaoh where he is taken and raised by the king’s daughter. When one puts the two stories side by side, it is obvious that they are almost identical in scope – particularly considering how Jesus avoids detection by the forces of Herod.

If none of these accounts can be taken as factually accurate what does this say about the Christmas story we have all learned as children?

The real question to consider is: what do the traditional Christmas accounts we have all been taught tell us about God?

Christianity has always held that God descended the heights of heaven, and took on flesh, to save mankind from its sinfulness. God was an external being that was completely Other, reigning from another far-off realm of consciousness, Who needed to be placated by humanity’s compliance and subservience.

But what if God is not a being, but rather a Reality, a Force, a Presence that is at the heart of all that pervades the earth and the universe?

If so, then God never had to come down from heaven. The reality of God was never detached from this plane of existence. Realizing this precious truth, we can see what the birth of Jesus really signals – hope is never far away because God can be discovered in the deepest expression of our own humanity. During Midnight Mass, when we kneel to honor the consummation of the Incarnation during the recitation of the Creed, we should do so not in austere humility – taken aghast at the prospect of God deeming humans worthy of enjoying His presence – but rather in sheer joy, adoration, and gratitude at the thought that God can be discovered so intimately within each one of us, and through our actions. This is what the Incarnation is fundamentally about: that the very essence and nature of the Divine was communicated to the world in the life of a human person, Jesus of Nazareth. This same Reality, can be discovered within every human person, and in all living things, if we only become aware and appreciative of the grace of the presence of God.

Even if the Christmas stories that mythologically tried to convey this sentiment are not factually true, this does not deprive them of their meaning. Through these intricate and stimulating parables we see that the reality of God is not only destined for the learned or the opulent, but can be cherished and found among the most meager of circumstances – in the company of shepherds or the stark simplicity of a manger. Even if Mary was not a virgin, how much more profound an insight would it be that the Divine can be communicated in all of life’s endeavors, especially during sexual intercourse between two people who are genuinely in love.

All of these points are what the authors of Matthew and Luke’s Gospels tried to emphasize, that the Divine can be located within the human sphere of reference, and that Hope is discovered not outside, but within the recesses of our humanity. This new beginning for the world that was offered in the person of Jesus of Nazareth is sorely needed amidst the challanges, sadness, and uncertanties of today’s world. Whether it be the bleak state of the globe’s economic affairs, war and violence that continue to plague numerous lands, or poverty and injustice that are made manifest even in our own nation, the planet Earth is much in need of a cosmic reboot to revitalize its fortunes. Yet, for anyone who has committed themselves to the cause of Christ, it is possible to bring such hope alive for countless souls. Doing so means not by assenting to doctrinal or dogmatic rubrics, but rather by living out and making evident the message of the One who Christians acclaim as the “Light of the World.”

I extend wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all who happen upon this posting! As food for reflection, it seemed appropriate to leave the words of Bishop John Shelby Spong, whose writings have been dominantly instrumental in reshaping my views of Scripture and its meaning for our lives:

“God is not a heavenly judge. God is a life force expanding inside humanity until that humanity becomes barrier-free. This was the God revealed in the fullness of Jesus’ humanity. It was a new God definition that shifted our old view of an external force into something found at the center of life. The being of this God calls us to be; the life of this God calls us to live; the love of this God calls us to love. Jesus lived the life of God. That is why we proclaim that in His life the Source of life was seen. In His love the Source of love was seen. In His courage, which enabled Him to be fully human, the Ground of All Being was seen. That is the experience that the word ‘Incarnation’ was created to communicate. It is not a doctrine to be believed so much as it is a presence to be experienced.” 

My mother gave the book Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith by Robert Barron as a Christmas gift this year, for both my wife and myself. Though I’m not quite finished with it, the following passage really stood out for me:

Aristotle said that the best activities are the most useless. This is because such things are not simply means to a further end, but are done entirely for their own sake. Thus watching a baseball game is more important than getting a haircut, and cultivating a friendship is more valuable than making money The game and the friendship are goods that are excellent in themselves, while getting a haircut and making money are in service of something beyond themselves. This is also why the most important parts of the newspaper are the sports section and the comics, and not, as we would customarily think, the business and political reports. In this sense, the most useless activity of all is the celebration of the Liturgy, which is another way of saying that it is the most important thing we could possibly do.

My own total lack of interest in sports notwithstanding, this passage does a good job, I think, of capturing the heart of why I remain a devoted Catholic. Father Barron does a very good job throughout of showing the myriad ways in which our society’s values are not God’s values — that in many ways our world is upside-down and backwards; a mirror-image of what it should be.

And he does so not through the typical Conservative “Culture Wars” rhetoric, but through true Gospel values. He writes of Christ calling us to oppose “… the realm of hatred, racism, sexism, violence, oppression, imperialism, what Augustine termed the libido dominandi (the lust to dominate).” The church, he points out, is not meant merely to withstand these forces, standing hard and fast against the Worldly onslaught until such time as Jesus returns to rescue us. Rather, our calling is to actively oppose injustice.

Father Barron speaks of our mission to “invade the world” (a more timely phrase might be, “occupy the world”) with God’s transformative love. But Love doesn’t mount a frontal assault — the ethic of “turn the other cheek” is more about (to appropriate another timely phrase) “winning over the hearts and minds” of those we should see not as the enemy, but as fellow-victims of an oppressive power-structure.

On December 22, Pope Benedict and the leaders of the Curia (Vatican administration) exchanged official Christmas greetings. His first Christmas as pope, Benedict added a new custom to this ceremony, a kind of “Year in Review” speech. Rocco Palmo reproduces this year’s official English text at Whispers in the Loggia.

Benedict talked about, well, a lot. He offered observations on his travels, including extended observations on World Youth Day. He alluded briefly to the meeting of world religious leaders at Assisi. He reflected on an “ethical crisis” behind the struggling European economy. He talked about church reform:

…what is reform of the Church? How does it take place? What are its paths and its goals? Not only faithful believers but also outside observers are noticing with concern that regular churchgoers are growing older all the time and that their number is constantly diminishing; that recruitment of priests is stagnating; that scepticism and unbelief are growing. What, then, are we to do? There are endless debates over what must be done in order to reverse the trend. There is no doubt that a variety of things need to be done. But action alone fails to resolve the matter. The essence of the crisis of the Church in Europe is the crisis of faith. If we find no answer to this, if faith does not take on new life, deep conviction and real strength from the encounter with Jesus Christ, then all other reforms will remain ineffective.

This is all very true. Ecclesiastical dysfunctions do not descend from a cloud or rise up from a cave. People create them. To create something better, people have to be better. People must cultivate better inner resources, which they draw from God. Benedict’s characteristic emphasis on personal conversion has always been, to a certain point, legitimate.

But I sense a message behind the pope’s message. I sense the faith of which he speaks is to some extent prepackaged. It looks a certain way. It always loops back to certain givens, like assenting to the full slate of official teachings, that prove and grade our faith. It is a closed universe.

The problem with faith in God is that it has to be, in the final sense, just that: faith in God. It cannot be faith in anything else, whether church or bible, tradition or magisterium. We must beware of imputing quasi-divine attributes to lesser entities, investing in oracles rather than the original source.

Oracles make tempting idols, since they are always in some sense controllable and understandable. God, by contrast, is always in some sense wild. God is never obligated to do things in any approved fashion, and always free to reveal more today than we knew yesterday. God is always roaming the frontiers of whatever expectations we have and whatever reassuring routines we follow.

We celebrate this now, during the Christmas octave. The God of Israel had accrued certain expectations. “Who is like to you among the gods, O LORD?” asks Exodus 15:11. “Who is like to you, magnificent in holiness?” A magnificent God was not supposed to pop out of an unmarried peasant teenager’s uterus in a manure-lined stable. Nor was such a God supposed to get crucified thirty-three years later, or pour out the Spirit on the Gentiles.

Christmas is about God’s right to overturn everything, to do new things when at last the time has come. If the time came once, it will surely come again. It will surely come again in the Catholic Church.

And I daresay that time will manifest—is already manifesting—in ways Pope Benedict does not expect and prefers not to allow. He, and all of us, will need to have faith.

In his collection of essays, Grace Notes, Brian Doyle writes about telling a story about his friend who was killed in the September 11 attacks, noting his “theory that every story I tell about Tommy is a prayer for his brilliant soul.” He writes essays about how nuns are the ones who have held the Church together, which will resonate with anyone who has ever loved or been moved by a Sister. He quotes Thomas Merton on silence as the voice of God, and he quotes a woman he met on a public bus who firmly asserts that, “God is not a suggesting box” as a way to explain why not all requests of the Almighty are granted. And he is a writer after every progressive Catholic’s heart when he asserts that, “We would have a far healthier church if we were far more honest about love in all its wild and confusing forms — all of which are, in the end, God, yes?”

In the midst of his provocative reflections on Catholicism and life, he also holds tight to the same Catholic rituals that many of us hold dear, offering a new insight about their necessity in an ever-more-digital world: “As the century gets ever more electronic and virtual and remote, we will ever-more turn to the tactile, the actual, to wood and wool, stone and bone, cloth and paper. To stories we can touch. We yearn and thirst for what is real, what was born in the ancient earth.”

Brian Doyle does not shy away from what is real, as his essays cover everything from the craziness of marriage to the sadness (according to him) of pornography. But what surprised me most about this book were not the essays tying all forms of love to God, or outlining the theology of a childless woman on a bus. What surprised me most were how many of the essays made no overt reference to Catholicism or even to God. Wait a minute, I thought when I encountered these essays; aren’t these all supposed to be about Catholicism?

And yet, the absence of such blatant references in a book like this only inspires one to look even deeper, to realize that for Brian, and for many of us, our every experience of life, our every experience of the Holy, is infused with our latent Catholicism whether we acknowledge it or not. And if each story we tell is a prayer, then this book is a beautiful collection of prayers about nuns, mothers, wives, children, and strangers — many of whom any reader will recognize.

Reflecting upon Jesus’ promise that he has gone ahead to “prepare a place for you,” Doyle adds, “But we are already in the doorway of that house, don’t you think?”

This is a book about day-to-day living, and all the beautiful, sad, and holy things that happen within that doorway.

While attending the Nov. 4-6 Call To Action conference in Milwaukee, I had dinner with a few other 20/30s. One was a chaplain whose department actually sent her. She couldn’t believe they did it. And she knew outsiders must never find out.

Two and a half weeks later, I read an NCR blog post from veteran journalist and CTA member Robert McClory, entitled “The high cost of lost integrity”. McClory begins:

In commenting on my article concerning the nonreception of church teaching (“When is dissent not just dissent?” Nov. 17), Jim McCrea made some valid points well worth considering: “How many of us know priests and lay people, active in parishes and dioceses, who compromise their core beliefs so as to carry on the good work they are doing within church structures? Whether the issue is Eucharistic inclusivity, option for the poor, a thinking laity, married clergy, women’s ordination, homosexuality, contraception, our Church fosters a culture of keeping quiet so as to keep going…”

And McClory concludes:

I may be wrong but I submit a direct link exists between…survey findings showing the withdrawal of trust people place in church leadership and the inability of church leaders to be open, candid and transparent about their convictions. You may include here a great number of priests, religion teachers, laity working in Catholic hospitals, universities and other institutions, pastors, chancery officials and those bishops who understand what’s going on [bold text mine]. They remain outwardly discrete and noncommittal lest honest candor cost them their jobs. And everyone sees through this thin disguise. The result is often not sympathy for their plight but sad disillusionment among many Catholics and angry cynicism among others.

To be fair, Church structures do have a few slots for mavericks. As a semi-Chicagoan, I think first of Father Michael Pfleger, a social justice priest known nationally for his in-your-face activism and Masses featuring lots of praise-and-worship music, lots of liturgical dancing, and lots of Pentecostal-style preaching. He has usually, though not always, served with a free hand.

However, Pfleger does not survive by charisma alone. He is pastor of St. Sabina’s, a vibrant mega-parish with huge neighborhood clout on the South Side. Without that clout, progressive ministry easily turns into high-stakes poker.

I was on the inside of lay ministry as an amateur. I know first-hand that the ranks are heavily composed of colorful closet radicals, compassionate people insatiably attracted by the hope of a world made new. And they are always meticulously checking themselves, constantly alert, like the deer in my backyard listening for coyotes.

Over time, as I tuned in to the myriad backroom machinations of our polarized Church, I realized all this was prudent. But the undercurrent of evasion increasingly put me off. And I’ve stopped considering professional ministry in part because, as my blog presumably makes clear, I can’t shut up.

But for those whose discernment leaves you no escape, where are you to turn? Job loss is the least of your problems. Ministry possesses you. The call to be a Christ-light for others will burn you if you reject it. It is who you are. And there are so few places in our society, let alone careers, where you are allowed to even approximate who you are.

Some would say: “just go find another church.” But again: you’re either a Catholic in your gut or you’re not. And if you are, you’re incurable–a gift and a curse.

Mike Royko, in his 1971 book Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago, quotes the legendary mayor’s customary rant against neighborhood groups he considered pushy:

I want you to tell me what to do. You come up with the answers. You come up with the program. Are we perfect? Are you perfect? We all make mistakes. We all have faults. It’s easy to criticize. It’s easy to find fault. But you tell me what to do. This problem is all over the city. We didn’t create these problems. We don’t want them. But we are doing what we can. You tell me how to solve them. You give me a program.

It is easy for us to criticize church employees. It is easy to find fault. They didn’t create these problems. They do what they can. And I do not know how to solve it. I do not have a program.

But I know that once you truly understand your participation in a fearful, conformist environment, you have to examine your complicity. I know that complicity creates cynicism that cripples the Church. I know complicity must somehow stop. I know it must somehow stop down here on the bottom, with the lowly priests, the campus chaplains, the social services, the sisters, the brothers, and the laity.

Because, above all, I know this: the revolution will have no cardinals.